Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mergetool: don't skip modify/remove conflicts

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2011, 00:54 UTC
Message-ID: <7v1v3aqfqm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1297570198-21103-2-git-send-email-martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>

Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> writes:

Show 44 quoted lines

> diff --git a/builtin/rerere.c b/builtin/rerere.c
> index 081fccc..7b9fe18 100644
> --- a/builtin/rerere.c
> +++ b/builtin/rerere.c
> @@ -147,8 +147,6 @@ int cmd_rerere(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  	if (!strcmp(argv[0], "clear")) {
>  		for (i = 0; i < merge_rr.nr; i++) {
>  			const char *name = (const char *)merge_rr.items[i].util;
> -			if (!name)
> -				continue;
>  			if (!has_rerere_resolution(name))
>  				unlink_rr_item(name);
>  		}
> @@ -157,19 +155,22 @@ int cmd_rerere(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  		garbage_collect(&merge_rr);
>  	else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "status"))
>  		for (i = 0; i < merge_rr.nr; i++) {
> -			if (!merge_rr.items[i].util)
> -				continue;
>  			printf("%s\n", merge_rr.items[i].string);
>  		}
> -	else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "remaining"))
> -		for (i = 0; i < merge_rr.nr; i++)
> -			printf("%s\n", merge_rr.items[i].string);
> -	else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "diff"))
> +	else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "remaining")) {
> +		rerere_remaining(&merge_rr);
> +		for (i = 0; i < merge_rr.nr; i++) {
> +			if (merge_rr.items[i].util != RERERE_RESOLVED)
> +				printf("%s\n", merge_rr.items[i].string);
> +			else
> +				/* prepare for later call to
> +				 * string_list_clear() */
> +				merge_rr.items[i].util = NULL;
> +		}
> +	} else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "diff"))
>  		for (i = 0; i < merge_rr.nr; i++) {
>  			const char *path = merge_rr.items[i].string;
>  			const char *name = (const char *)merge_rr.items[i].util;
> -			if (!name)
> -				continue;
>  			diff_two(rerere_path(name, "preimage"), path, path, path);
>  		}
>  	else

By looking at the diff between the parent of f322b35 (my earlier "rerere remaining" patch) and the result of applying this patch on top of the patch, I think the basic idea of this is to correct my stupid mistake of contaminating merge_rr unconditionally, and instead adding the "remaining" entries only when handling the "rerere remaining" command (hence many removal of special cases "if (!name) continue" introduced by my patch. The result looks _much_ cleaner than the above patch shows and I am happy with it.

But shouldn't you also revert the parts of my patch to do_plain_rerere() and rerere_forget() that have similar special cases?